Karnataka High Court
Shree Mahalakshmi Stone Crusher vs The Secretary To Government on 15 March, 2023
Author: Prasanna B. Varale
Bench: Prasanna B. Varale
-1-
WP No. 19799 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.19799 OF 2022 (GM-MM_S)
BETWEEN:
1. SHREE MAHALAKSHMI STONE CRUSHER
BY ITS PARTNER
SRI ALAGOUDA S/O GIRIGOUDA PATIL
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS
R/OJAINPUR, CHIKKODI TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT - 591 201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCTE FOR
SRI. SHIVALLI SHIVAYOGI YALLAPPAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by AMBIKA H B 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
Location: HIGH DEPT. OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
COURT OF VIKAS SOUDHA
KARNATAKA BENGALURU
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
KHANIJA BHAVANA
BAUXITE ROAD
BELAGAVI - 590 001
3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY
STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, KARNATAKA
NO.706, 7TH FLOOR, 4TH GATE
-2-
WP No. 19799 of 2022
M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR RESPONDENT Nos.1 AND 2
SRI D.NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE
PROCEEDINGS IF 217TH SEIAA MEETING DATED 19.05.2022 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT No.3 IN SO FAR AS ITEM No.217.1.18 IS CONCERNED
AS BEING ARBITRARY ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW EQUITY
AND JUSTICE (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ASHOK S.
KINAGI, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing the Proceedings of 217th State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority's (SEIAA) meeting dated 19.05.2022 passed by respondent No.3 insofar as Item No.217.1.18 is concerned as the same is arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to law and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to issue/grant Environmental Clearance Certificate in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the recommendation being made by the State Expert Appraisal Committee (for short, 'SEAC') in its meeting dated 20/21.04.2022 for carrying on quarrying operation for extracting ordinary building stone in land bearing survey No.36/2(P) -3- WP No. 19799 of 2022 measuring 6 acres 9 guntas situated at Jainapur Village, Chikkodi Taluk, Belagavi District.
2. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The petitioner submitted an application in Form AQL seeking grant of quarrying licence for extracting ordinary building stone over the patta land bearing survey No.36/2(P) measuring 6 acres 9 guntas of Jainapur Village, Chikkodi Taluk, Belagavi District. The respondent - Competent Authority after submitting AQL application by the petitioner, obtained NOCs and reports from the concerned departments. The petitioner pursuant to the direction of the Competent Authority applied and obtained deemed NA order under sub-section (9) and Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. The respondent - Competent Authority after obtaining NOCs, technical reports and Deemed NA order from the concerned Departments got issued Form GL notification granting approval for execution of quarrying licence in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 after issuing the notification dated 06.12.2021/07.12.2021 also issued Approved Quarrying Plan in -4- WP No. 19799 of 2022 favour of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an application along with Form I under B2 Category for obtaining Environmental Clearance Certificate from respondent No.3 as per the Government Notification dated 14.09.2006 and the same was accepted by respondent No.3 on 22.03.2022. Respondent No.2 issued a letter along with approved map with details of the existing quarry leases within a distance of 500 metres from the petitioner's quarry area.
SEAC meeting was held to consider the applications filed for obtaining Environmental Clearance Certificate. In the said meeting, the applications have been cleared including the application of the petitioner recommending to grant Environmental Clearance Certificate by respondent No.3. SEAC after recommending the case of the petitioner in its meeting, forwarded a letter along with recommendations to respondent No.3 for granting EC in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 in its meeting dated 19.05.2022 without taking into consideration the facts of the case, has resolved to refer back the file to SEAC for necessary action. The petitioner aggrieved by the Proceedings dated 19.05.2022 referring back the file to SEAC for necessary action, has filed this writ petition.
-5-WP No. 19799 of 2022
3. Heard Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Shivalli Shivayogi Yallappagouda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S.Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri D.Nagaraj, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 has committed an error in referring back the file to SEAC for necessary action. After arguing the matter for some time, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Proceedings is dated 19.05.2022 and SEAC has not initiated any action till date. Therefore, he submitted that if a direction is issued to SEAC to consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a time limit, he has no objection to dispose of the writ petition and no injustice would be caused to the respondents.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that if a reasonable time is granted, SEAC would consider the application of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The submissions are placed on record. -6- WP No. 19799 of 2022
6. In view of the submissions, the matter is referred back to SEAC for reconsideration as the Proceedings were passed by respondent No.3 on 19.05.2022 and till date, SEAC has not taken any initiative to pass order pursuant to the order passed by respondent No.3. If a direction is issued to SEAC, no injustice would be caused to the respondents. Hence, in view of the above discussions, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is disposed of directing State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19